Drunken Diplomat Arrested After Flight Disturbance

[toptuan]

Arresting a Brit for being drunk?

Wouldn't that be like arresting a French for eating cheese?

...or the Italians for pissing in their train compartments?

[StateSix]

Anti depressants & alcohol ? Hmmmmmmmmm bad cocktail.The judgement just brushed the offence undre the carpet. Imagine if you or I had to face court after such behavior ,we would have been told we should have known better & that ignorance is no excuse.

In the old days in some countries if you killed someone whilst drunk , you got off , cause you were in a temporary state of insanity.

Terrible verdict. The jury obviously went for his barristers sob story. I think it is disgusting that he used the tragedy of the Tsunami for his own ends. Many, many people saw far worse sights than him.

I liked the quote from the judge when he refused the defences application for costs:

"I took a view when I heard the evidence that the defendant had consumed alcohol to an extent which was excessive and having done so knowing he was also on antidepressants he brought the matter on himself and I am not minded to allow the application for defence costs."

Obviously not a bleeding heart liberal like the jury.

Do we think that the verdict would have been the same if the guy was from a Manchester council estate, unemployed and had an overworked, underpaid legal aid lawyer?

<deleted> does this have to do with being liberal ?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiberaL:

Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which holds liberty as the primary political value.[1] Liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a free market economy that supports private enterprise, and a system of government that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over individual rights.

Liberal with a lower case 'l', not the political ideology. I used it in the sense that they were tolerant of this guys actions, believing his sob story that the incident was not his fault, he had no control of his actions etc. The term 'bleeding heart liberal' is often used to describe those who believe that criminals should not be punished for their actions, and that it was all down to their upbringing or society.

Before I get flamed, I do NOT believe he should be sent down for life or anything stupid like that. However I do believe that he was guilty of the offence and even the judge commented that he drank an excessive amount of alcohol, knowing he was on medication. A fair sentence to me would be a conditional discharge or possibly a community service order.

However the jury have made their decision, so we should accept their decision.

[udon]

Gosh, how upsetting for the usual TV lynch mobsters, a verdict that failed to vindicate their silly prejudices. Never mind, I am sure another drugs smuggler/paedophile will soon lurch into view to fill the vacuum.

Well, the lucky Colonel isn't held in very high regard by some of the British Tsunami survivors.

When everyone else was working around the clock, he was found in a bar at 2100.

A mate of your's is he Gent?

[StateSix]

Gosh, how upsetting for the usual TV lynch mobsters, a verdict that failed to vindicate their silly prejudices. Never mind, I am sure another drugs smuggler/paedophile will soon lurch into view to fill the vacuum.

What silly prejudices did the verdict fail to vindicate? I dont see any problem with being 'predjudiced' against drunken idiots abusing people on a plane.

[billd766]

And no doubt he will find himself back in a position of importance within the British Diplomatic Corps. I hope for all our sakes that he doesn't return to Thailand.

I actually hope that he does return to his post in Thailand.

That would give the Tai government the opportunity to declare him persona non grata and then he would be officially in the sh1t.

Whilst I was in the military there was a charge which reads "conduct predudicial to good order and discipline" which is a catch all charge.

I don't know or care much if he was guilty of the offense but he should know better given his age and rank.

I suspect however that there will always be a black mark on his service record and the his future promotion chances are now zero.

[the gent]

Gosh, how upsetting for the usual TV lynch mobsters, a verdict that failed to vindicate their silly prejudices. Never mind, I am sure another drugs smuggler/paedophile will soon lurch into view to fill the vacuum.

What silly prejudices did the verdict fail to vindicate? I dont see any problem with being 'predjudiced' against drunken idiots abusing people on a plane.

Res ipse loquitur. Honestly, just where do these idiots come from?

[Potato]

Silly question....but, whay do they call Scotland Yard...Scotland Yard?

Actualy old boy,the OLD scotland yard was named scotland yard 'cos it was in

OLD scotland yard, & i think the powers that were thought that 'NEW'would ba good wheeze. ,sorry i'm off pissed (piste ?)

[the gent]

Gosh, how upsetting for the usual TV lynch mobsters, a verdict that failed to vindicate their silly prejudices. Never mind, I am sure another drugs smuggler/paedophile will soon lurch into view to fill the vacuum.

Well, the lucky Colonel isn't held in very high regard by some of the British Tsunami survivors.

When everyone else was working around the clock, he was found in a bar at 2100.

A mate of your's is he Gent?

No, never met the chap.

The report you are alluding to stated that he was seen in the bar enjoying a cold beer before retiring to bed shortly thereafter, when all the "thai" carried on with their relief efforts.

Presumably, the reference to alcohol in that context is germane to the offence for which he was ultimately charged, otherwise you would not have raised it. If he had been enjoying a boiled egg perhaps that may have had another significance but as it is drinking a cold beer is obviously indicative of something much worse. And going to bed when everyone else was struggling with their relief efforts? Yes, of course, that included the governor of Phuket, the chief of police, the Secretary of State for the Interior Ministry from Bangkok, all the plenipotentiaries of the European countries concerned, the officer commanding of the RT armed services, etc., etc. All these people were of course working around the clock and declined repose until who knows when. Yeah, sure. But of course the Defence attache, at 50 years old, should have personally set an example nevertheless because, well, he should have.

Holier than thou is generally the first line in the sanctimonious prayer book....

[StateSix]

Gosh, how upsetting for the usual TV lynch mobsters, a verdict that failed to vindicate their silly prejudices. Never mind, I am sure another drugs smuggler/paedophile will soon lurch into view to fill the vacuum.

What silly prejudices did the verdict fail to vindicate? I dont see any problem with being 'predjudiced' against drunken idiots abusing people on a plane.

Res ipse loquitur. Honestly, just where do these idiots come from?

I will admit that, as I am illiterate in Latin, I had to look it up . 'The matter speaks for itself'. So, according to you, I am 'one of the usual TV lynch mobsters', and have 'silly prejudices'. Hmm, I merely asked you a question, then gave my opinion. You on the other hand made a clever comment in Latin in an attempt to appear sooooo much more sophisticated and educated than others, before resorting to name calling. So to you too.

Do you believe his behaviour was acceptable?

[the gent]

Sorry, state 6, I was just having a bit of fun and didn't mean to offend. I am still working on my life skills!

No, the defence attache's behaviour was not acceptable nor, as it transpired, was it criminal.

The prejudice to which I was referring, demonstrated time and again by forum members here and in other threads, was the notion that anyone charged with an offence is automatically guilty of it before legal proceedings have been resolved.

Additionally, in this particular thread, a sort of inverted snobbery soon developed which was rooted in nothing but " silly prejudice". Certainly, the latter was fairly obvious, at least I thought.

[Patex]

Gosh, how upsetting for the usual TV lynch mobsters, a verdict that failed to vindicate their silly prejudices. Never mind, I am sure another drugs smuggler/paedophile will soon lurch into view to fill the vacuum.

What silly prejudices did the verdict fail to vindicate? I dont see any problem with being 'predjudiced' against drunken idiots abusing people on a plane.

Res ipse loquitur. Honestly, just where do these idiots come from?

I will admit that, as I am illiterate in Latin, I had to look it up . 'The matter speaks for itself'. So, according to you, I am 'one of the usual TV lynch mobsters', and have 'silly prejudices'. Hmm, I merely asked you a question, then gave my opinion. You on the other hand made a clever comment in Latin in an attempt to appear sooooo much more sophisticated and educated than others, before resorting to name calling. So to you too.

Do you believe his behaviour was acceptable?

Name calling?

"Idiot" is still Latin, look it up in your dictionary

[dr_Pat_Pong]

[Richard W]

"Idiot" is still Latin, look it up in your dictionary

I was going to say it's Greek to me, but see idiota !

[Patex]

Oops,

If you are fluent in both of this beautiful dead languages it can happen that you mix it up... sometimes...

[dr_Pat_Pong]

[StateSix]

Sorry, state 6, I was just having a bit of fun and didn't mean to offend. I am still working on my life skills!

No, the defence attache's behaviour was not acceptable nor, as it transpired, was it criminal.

The prejudice to which I was referring, demonstrated time and again by forum members here and in other threads, was the notion that anyone charged with an offence is automatically guilty of it before legal proceedings have been resolved.

Additionally, in this particular thread, a sort of inverted snobbery soon developed which was rooted in nothing but " silly prejudice". Certainly, the latter was fairly obvious, at least I thought.

Hi the gent. No offence taken

I see what you are saying about sentencing before judicial proceedings have been completed, but there is nothing wrong with commenting on the case and the guilt/innocence of the accused.

Inverted snobbery? I suppose there was an element of that in my posts, but I still maintain that the verdict would have been different if the accused was a young shaven headed chav from a council estate, with an underpaid, overworked legal aid lawyer.

As I stated previously, the jury have made their decision and their view is the only one that matters

[bulmercke]

Colonel Peter Roberts -

Fatigue.....medication.....alcohol (wine, whisky etc.).....a fatal combination occasionally.....

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Colonel Peter Roberts -

Fatigue.....medication.....alcohol (wine, whisky etc.).....a fatal combination occasionally.....

No more overseas posts for Roberts I'd hope.

[bulmercke]

Actually, I have a tinge of sympathy for the fellow. For if this incident doesn't totally destroy his career, it will certainly put it on ice.

No doubt, this unfortunate incident apart, he is a fine upstanding member of the diplomatic community with outstanding abilities and skills; you don't get to be a military attache for the British government for nothing...even if you did have a public school education and have a military back-ground!

My guess, is that he's one of those individuals who just bottle everything up, and unfortunatley on this occasion the medication, alcohol and whatever else caused all his pent-up emotions to come -out in a not too pleasant way!

There, but for the grace of God....go I.....

[bulmercke]

Actually, I have a tinge of sympathy for the fellow. For if this incident doesn't totally destroy his career, it will certainly put it on ice.

No doubt, this unfortunate incident apart, he is a fine upstanding member of the diplomatic community with outstanding abilities and skills; you don't get to be a military attache for the British government for nothing...even if you did have a public school education and have a military back-ground!

My guess, is that he's one of those individuals who just bottle everything up, and unfortunatley on this occasion the medication, alcohol and whatever else caused all his pent-up emotions to come -out in a not too pleasant way!

There, but for the grace of God....go I.....

Mind you, the verdict ABSOLUTELY STINKS....in the United Kingdom just as in a lot of other places....money and position buys and commands justice! He must have had an extremely good barrister is all I can say.

And there's no disputing the fact that he is guilty of threatening behaviour and disorderly conduct WHATEVER THE CAUSES......yet again, the establishment looks after it's own....

The members of that jury should hang their heads in shame!

[the gent]

Are there two Bulmerckes?

[bulmercke]

Are there two Bulmerckes?

My first post was before I had learnt the verdict.....the second.....obviously knowing what the verdict was.... hence the two widely differing views....but I still stand by both posts

Well spotted 'the gent'.

[Scott]

Hey, I know a lot of people who require antidepressants and copious amounts of alcohol in order to face returning to the UK! Have a little sympathy for the poor man!

(Hey, I am just joking).

[the gent]

Are there two Bulmerckes?

My first post was before I had learnt the verdict.....the second.....obviously knowing what the verdict was.... hence the two widely differing views....but I still stand by both posts

Well spotted 'the gent'.

Oh dear. To whom does one respond? The measured rational or the indignant from Worthing?

The jury, as you full well know , deliberated upon the evidence put before them by the Court and had to decide whether or not the prosecution had, " beyond a shadow of doubt", proved their case. I am just speculating but it seems to me that the prosecution failed to prove that the defence attache, in acting the way he did, was capable of formulating the necessary "mens rea". I should also imagine that the defence was able to persuade the jury that the man had acted in a way so divorced from his normal behaviour that the usual caveat as to voluntary inebriation, or other like incapacity, simply did not apply.

Either way, any imbalance in ability between prosecuting and defending counsel would have been corrected, on the evidence elicited during the course of the trial, by the trial judge who would have directed the jury on matters of law in his summation before they retired to deliberate upon their verdict. Given his subsequent ruling on the costs application, I shouldn't have imagined that the judge had inclined towards the defendant in his summation.

Twelve good men and true, it seems.

But of course, we are not privy to the facts but exist within a forum that, by its very nature, rationalises upon sensation, prejudice, ignorance and, on occasion, sheer stupidity.

Edited January 29, 2006 by the gent

[bulmercke]

The Gent - "I should also imagine that the defence was able to persuade the jury that the man had acted in a way so divorced from his normal behaviour that the usual caveat as to voluntary inebriation, or other like incapacity, simply did not apply."

O.K. Things like: no previous criminal record - testimonies of good character - character references - mitigating circumstances - confusion about the drug in question and time zones - circumstantial evidence suggesting that the defendant was badly affected by the personal aspects of the Asian Tsunami he presumably had to deal with etc. etc. would have definitely been presented by the defence.....but the fact remains that the individual in question behaved abhorrently.....threatening behaviour.....disorderly conduct.....sexual molestation....resisting arrest.....endangering the safety of the other passengers on that particular flight....etc...etc....

His behaviour, in most other circumstances, with hightened interest now in air safety and the threat of terrorism, would have most certainly got him a custodial sentence in most countries of the world, despite the aforementioned details put forward by the defence to the jury.

He should consider himself, very, very fortunate, indeed!

Should be placed on a "no-fly list".